Riley v. Lissner

35 N.E. 1130, 160 Mass. 330, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 271
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 35 N.E. 1130 (Riley v. Lissner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Riley v. Lissner, 35 N.E. 1130, 160 Mass. 330, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 271 (Mass. 1894).

Opinion

Holmes J.

This is an action for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of falling into a cesspool in a kitchen hired by her of the defendant. The defendant had undertaken to clean the cesspool, and there was some evidence that the defendant and his man, after dipping out and carrying away a number of pailfuls, took everything away, replaced the cover, and went off, so that the plaintiff was warranted by their [331]*331behavior in understanding that they had finished their task. There was evidence also that the accident was caused by the cover not having been replaced properly, and that, when the plaintiff stepped upon it in the course of her work, a corner tipped and let her into the hole. This may not be the most probable view of the facts, but it is a possible one, and if the jury took it they were warranted in finding the defendant liable, not as landlord, but as having led the plaintiff into a trap by his conduct. Grill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477. Brow v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 157 Mass. 399. Elliott v. Pray, 10 Allen, 378. For the jury might have found that it was reasonable that the defendant should ‘put the cover of the cesspool back into its proper place when he finished work, (Kent v. Todd, 144 Mass. 478, 491,) and therefore that he had warranted the plaintiff in assuming that he had done so, or, as the plaintiff put it, that he would not leave the cover on the hole and leave it unsafe for her to step on it. Exceptions overruled.

T. J. Morrison, for the defendant. AT. N. Oollison, (AT. S. Courtney with him,) for the plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Levitan v. Zacepitsky
50 Mass. App. Dec. 37 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1972)
Tanguay v. Wood Conversion Co.
199 N.E.2d 181 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1964)
Barron v. Salem Five Cents Savings Bank
9 Mass. App. Div. 144 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1944)
Sweeney v. Roseneau
7 Mass. App. Div. 235 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Cohen v. Davies
25 N.E.2d 223 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Beauvais v. Springfield Institution for Savings
20 N.E.2d 957 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Rudomen v. Green
13 N.E.2d 416 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Rathgeber v. Kelley
13 N.E.2d 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Westcott v. Doyle
2 Mass. App. Div. 427 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Marquis v. Messier
2 Mass. App. Div. 432 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.
180 N.E. 245 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Harvey v. Crane
131 N.E. 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Morrissey v. Boston & Maine Railroad
230 Mass. 171 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Massaletti v. Fitzroy
118 N.E. 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Thomas v. Lane
109 N.E. 363 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
McLeod v. Rawson
215 Mass. 257 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 N.E. 1130, 160 Mass. 330, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-lissner-mass-1894.